Singh v Minister for Home Affairs

[2019] FCCA 2150

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH & ORS v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR [2019] FCCA 2150

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – interlocutory application – application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – application for Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa – application for an adjournment – application dismissed.

First Applicant: JANPAL SINGH

Second Applicant: NAVJOT KAUR

Third Applicant: EKAM KAUR SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1060 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Humphreys

Hearing date: 8 July 2019

Date of Last Submission: 8 July 2019

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 8 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

First Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Hutton, AGS

ORDERS

1. The request by the First Applicant for an adjournment is refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

SYG 1060 of 2018

JANPAL SINGH

First Applicant

NAVJOT KAUR

Second Applicant

EKAM KAUR

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Introduction

1. The applicants consist of husband Janpal Singh (“first applicant”), his wife Navjot Kaur (“second applicant”) and their child Ekam Kaur (“third applicant”). The first applicant was the primary applicant.

2. This is an application for an adjournment in relation to an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in relation to a refusal for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa.

Background

1. The decision of the Tribunal was on 21 March 2018. The first applicant applied to this Court for judicial review on 16 April 2018. The matter is listed before me today for hearing. At no point in time has the first applicant been legally represented. The first applicant comes here today, and asks for an adjournment on the basis that he wishes to seek legal representation in relation to the hearing.

2. There are some 5000 migration matters that are currently before this Court. This matter has been in the Court’s list for over 14 months. There has been every opportunity for the first applicant to arrange legal representation prior to today. This matter has been listed for hearing for some months and the first applicant was aware of the fact that the matter was coming for hearing.

3. Whilst I am sympathetic to the first applicant’s request to have legal advice, I must bear in mind the need for the Court to finalise matters in an expeditious manner. In so doing, I note that the representatives of the Minister have opposed the hearing and opposed the adjournment application.

4. In my view, adequate steps have not been taken to for the matter to be ready for hearing. There was adequate time to obtain legal representation. To suggest to me that no appointment has been made until this afternoon to see a legal representative is not, in my view, a sufficient basis for which to grant an adjournment.

Conclusion

1. Accordingly the application is refused.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Humphreys

Deputy Associate:  

Date:  5 August 2019